Hopes fading for swift US, Pakistan deal on Afghan supply routes

As Zardari travels to attend the Chicago summit, the deadlock over Nato supply routes remain.


Reuters May 18, 2012
Hopes fading for swift US, Pakistan deal on Afghan supply routes

CHICAGO: The Obama administration may be not be able to strike a long-awaited agreement with Pakistan to help supply Western soldiers in Afghanistan as hoped in time for a major Nato summit in Chicago this weekend, a US official said.

"There's a distinct possibility that we may not see an agreement before the end of this weekend," the US official said on condition of anonymity. "But talks are progressing and we do expect to reach a deal in the near future."

Earlier this week, as Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari accepted a last-minute Nato invitation to the May 20-21 summit, many US officials were optimistic they could finally make a deal to reopen key Nato ground routes into Afghanistan. Pakistan shut the routes in protest when US aircraft killed 24 Pakistani soldiers along the Afghan border in November.

Zardari's appearance at the summit was seen as a potential breakthrough after the border deaths plunged perennially poor US-Pakistan ties into a deep freeze for months.

Now, as the two countries continue to disagree about details of a possible deal, that optimism appears to have faded.

Nato nations, grappling with severe fiscal pressure at home, are anxious to reach an agreement under which Pakistan would allow Nato trucks to once again travel on Pakistani roads, in part because shipping supplies into land-locked Afghanistan from the north is much more expensive.

Being able to transit across Pakistan becomes even more important as US commanders prepare for the monumental logistical task of withdrawing most of the 128,000 Nato soldiers in Afghanistan - and the equipment they have accumulated since 2001 - by the end of 2014.

Negotiations between US and Pakistani officials in Islamabad have dragged on.

From the beginning, Zardari's government has demanded a high-level apology for the border deaths, which Nato said were accidental but which enraged Pakistanis.

The Obama administration, loathe to expose itself to further Republican criticism, has refused to apologise.

The US official said a "wide gulf" remained on the amount Nato nations would be charged for transporting equipment into Afghanistan, the central stumbling block in those talks.

Pakistan says its roads require millions of dollars in repairs after years of Nato trucks going back and forth on it. The amount that Pakistani officials believe should be charged is far higher than what US officials have offered.

"The fees proposed by the Pakistanis are unacceptable, not just to the United States but to our NATO allies," the official said.

Lack of an agreement could add strains to interactions between President Barack Obama and other senior US officials and Pakistani leaders during the summit. US officials have long complained that Pakistan has failed to act sufficiently against militants fighting US troops in Afghanistan.

The White House said on Thursday that Obama had no plans for a one-on-one meeting with Zardari.

Still, Zardari's government supports reopening the supply routes once a deal can be reached that satisfies both sides. For that reason the Obama administration expects to ultimately find an arrangement on the supply routes and on the precise amount of US military assistance Washington owes Pakistan.

COMMENTS (11)

Dr V. C. Bhutani | 12 years ago | Reply

Mr Zardari should not have gone to Washington without wrapping up an agreement for reopening supply routes to Afghanistan. If this report is accurate, then Mr Zardari must prepare to come back from Washington empty handed. As it is, Mr Obama has not even scheduled a meeting with Mr Zardari. Let’s see what the summit achieves. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 19 May 2012, 1857 IST

Sexton Blake | 12 years ago | Reply

@the Skunk: Dear Skunk, I am sure that Cautious mistakenly got it wrong when he used the word duplicitous. He almost certainly meant that America was being duplicitous as against Pakistan. Isn't that right Cautious?

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ